Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
WikiProject Lists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Lists of people - notability for each subject?[edit]

I've tried reading archived discussions about redlinks in lists and notability requirements for list items, but I am still at a loss for how it applies to lists of real people. I have seen many "lists of" for musicians, groups, and singers from certain genres or geographic locales. Of those I've examined, they include almost entirely subjects which are notable, i.e. have or may soon have articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, they include either just each subject's name, or perhaps include active years and/or a short explanation of who they are. The following series of lists (List of South Korean idol groups (2010s), List of South Korean idol groups (2000s), List of South Korean idol groups (1990s)) attempts to include ALL "idol groups" that have ever existed within South Korea, including those for which notability does not and will not likely ever exist. The list also includes an extraordinary amount of extra information on each subject, all of which is already included in the notable subjects' articles. We've attempted to have discussions about these lists, but editors seem to be divided into two camps: the "keep everything because kpop fans like it" and "make these lists like other wikipedia lists" camps. I think it's hard for us to see these lists in the wider scope of Wikipedia because, like any fandom, kpop fans tend to be insular and very passionate. I've tried to do my research, but I'd really like other eyes to look at these lists and give some guidance about the appropriateness of their length and inclusiveness. *note: I know sourcing is an issue at the moment, so no need to bring that up right now. Thank you - I just want to get better ideas of Wikipedia standards so some of these arguments can stop. Actually, the list of possibly-overly-inclusive lists is an issue for many, many kpop articles, but I'll start with just this set of lists.  :) Shinyang-i (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC) edit: Sorry if I posted this at the wrong place. I have also posted it now at WikiProject Lists. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we include the meta-info "We have an article on this" (beyond just the bluelink) and if so how[edit]

Looking at List of statues of Queen Victoria... There are plenty of bluelinks, for the towns and even neighborhoods in which the statues are located, which IMO is fine... But for some (not most) entries there is also an article... which is probably of much more importance to the reader. My questions are:

  1. Is it proper to communicate to the reader the meta-information "We have an article on this entity"
  2. If so, how is this done?

What I've done placed the link to the articles (when there is one) in bolded italics. However, I haven't specified that this means anything in particular -- leaving the reader to maybe figure it or (or maybe not). We could remove the bluelinks that don't link to a statue article (that is, the bluelinks to the town where it is and so forth), leaving the remaining bluelinks much more clearly pointing to the statue articles. The cost is it leaves the reader who is like "Oh, it's in Lancaster, where's that and what's it like?" with no link to follow.

Another way to go would to have a key that says something like "bolded italics = that's a link to an article on the entity" or even color the box and have a key at the top saying "This color means we have an article on this entity". I've never seen this and I'm skeptical if it's a good idea. Any thoughts? Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for just getting to this, but you probably want to take this up with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting because your use of italics and bold violate Wikipedia formatting rules (see: MOS:NOITALIC). I will likely clean this up myself on the list. I would suggest using list structure to communicate your desired outcome. One column for "Location" and another for "Statue" or "Title" or something. That new column then would only have blue links for statues that have Wikipedia articles specific to the article. If you need me to create the new column, feel free to ask. Otherwise I will leave it to you and only do the font emphasis clean up --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Using non-semantic styling (particularly colour) in order to convey important information goes against MOS:ACCESS#Color. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

converting list to category[edit]

is there any guideline, please? I can't seem to find a template inverting {{Listify}}. I'd like to apply it here. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


There is only one mention of pictures in lists, and before that it doesn't discuss their relevance to a list articles, or lack thereof. Pictures seems counter intuitive to what lists are trying to accomplish. What is the consensus? Leitmotiv (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing consensus? Editing consensus is for inclusion. I'm don't know of any other consensus on this subject. I'm also not really sure what you mean by "counter intuitive". How so? I think including pictures in the List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois seems very intutive and serves what we are trying to accomplish with this list by showing pictures of the people on this list. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
On the List of caves page, there are basically floating pictures to the right of the list. They feel disconnected from whatever is happening on the left side of the page. As for "counter-intuitive", I meant that a list article is meant to be a bare bones list, right? You're not trying to inform the reader more about any given listing if it doesn't help with navigating the list. Why would you want to flesh out a list article by adding photos? Isn't that what a main article is for? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, list pages are not meant to be bare bones. That would make them indistinguishable from categories. List pages are treated the same as articles and require prose. List of caves is a poorly developed list as it doesn't even have prose discussing a rational inclusion criterion. There is no way we're simply listing all caves ever no matter how small and obscure. "Parking" some images on the right hand column is fairly common for under developed lists. The ideal would be to create a sortable list with a picture column like List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois. For caves, I think pictures add to the informative nature of this list. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Space after the asterisk in an item of a bulleted embedded list?[edit]

I seem to remember seeing instructions to have a space after the asterisk in an item of a bulleted embedded list. I can't find any mention of it now. Beyond making the list prettier when in edit mode, is this still a good idea, or was there a good reason to remove such instructions? Chris the speller yack 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be in the Manual of Style talking about bullets somewhere. I know I prefer it and still add them; but I do know it was removed from the auto generated content. Not sure why or who's responsible. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No definition of list included![edit]

I've just noticed that this guideline does not include a definition of what a list is. Neither does WP:STAND.

What is a list? The Transhumanist 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a type of stand-alone list missing[edit]

The guideline includes a list of stand-alone list types.

But what type of lists are these? I couldn't find their type in the list presented on the guideline page:

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 20:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Texas Longhorns football series records for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Texas Longhorns football series records is suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone list according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Specifically, the article presents issues of the interpretation and application of our notability and suitability guidelines to lists of sports statistics. The discussion may be found @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria[edit]

Since this the "Further information" linked in two sections covering Stand-alone lists and Embedded lists, it implies this should be looked on as overall guideline for both types of lists (seems obvious to me). If so shouldn't that guideline section be move to this MOS? Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists has no specific wording explaining obvious selection criteria/inclusion criteria/membership criteria and Manual of Style/Embedded lists gives no guidance at all on selection criteria, not even a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata lists[edit]

If you are interested in future list generation using Wikidata, please consider taking a look at d:Wikidata:List generation input and providing any comments on d:Wikidata talk:List generation input. --Izno (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)